Harpal Singh Sehmi & 4 others v Zehravanu Janmohammed & 3 others;Sports Registrar (Interested Parties) & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
J. K. Sergon
Judgment Date
October 02, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR case summary of Harpal Singh Sehmi & 4 others v Zehravanu Janmohammed & 3 others, examining key legal principles and implications in sports law and governance.

Case Brief: Harpal Singh Sehmi & 4 others v Zehravanu Janmohammed & 3 others;Sports Registrar (Interested Parties) & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Harpal Singh Sehmi & 4 Others v. Zehravanu Janmohammed & 3 Others
- Case Number: Civil Case No. 63 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: October 2, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): J. K. Sergon
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues before the court include:
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' application for interim orders.
- Whether the plaintiffs have standing to seek relief on behalf of Cricket Kenya after their terms have lapsed.
- Whether the plaintiffs' application for injunctions against the Sports Registrar is valid under the Government Proceedings Act.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, consisting of Harpal Singh Sehmi, Kennedy Obuya, Kalpesh Solanki, Pearlyne Omamo, and Omole Asiko, filed a motion seeking temporary orders to restrain the defendants from representing Cricket Kenya and to maintain their positions in the Interim Executive Board of Cricket Kenya. The defendants include Zehravanu Janmohammed, Tom Tikolo, Mukhtar Assaria, and Charles Nyaberi. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants breached a consent order that established an interim executive board, which was necessary for the management of Cricket Kenya, particularly in light of its financial operations. The plaintiffs contended that the absence of an executive board would jeopardize the association's ability to function and pay its employees.

4. Procedural History:
The plaintiffs filed a motion on May 18, 2020, seeking various interim orders. The defendants filed opposing affidavits and grounds of opposition. The court heard oral submissions from the parties involved, as well as written submissions from the interested parties. The primary argument from the defendants was that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, as the dispute should have been resolved under the Sports Act, which governs sports regulations in Kenya.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the relevant provisions of the Sports Act, No. 25 of 2013, which outlines the procedures for handling disputes related to sports. Additionally, Section 16(2) of the Government Proceedings Act was referenced regarding the limitations on issuing injunctions against government officials.
- Case Law: The court did not explicitly cite previous cases but referenced the statutory framework provided by the Sports Act and the Government Proceedings Act. The arguments made by the defendants suggested that prior cases interpreting the jurisdiction of sports-related disputes would support their position that the current case was improperly before the High Court.
- Application: The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had not followed the proper procedures established by the Sports Act, which required disputes to be addressed starting with the Sports Registrar, followed by the Sports Tribunal, and only then could an appeal be made to the High Court. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked original jurisdiction to entertain the application, leading to the decision to strike out the motion.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the motion dated May 18, 2020, was improperly before it and struck it out with costs to the defendants and interested parties. This decision underscored the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures in sports-related disputes, reinforcing the jurisdictional boundaries established by the Sports Act.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling, as it was a singular decision by Judge J. K. Sergon.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya in Harpal Singh Sehmi & 4 Others v. Zehravanu Janmohammed & 3 Others ruled in favor of the defendants by striking out the plaintiffs' motion for interim orders. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had not followed the proper legal channels as dictated by the Sports Act, establishing a precedent for the necessity of procedural compliance in similar disputes. The ruling highlights the importance of jurisdictional adherence in civil cases involving sports governance in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Harpal-Singh-Sehmi--4-others-v-Zehravanu-Janmohammed--3-others-Sports-Registrar-Interested-Parties--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1306_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries